jar546
Forum Coordinator
What is the verdict on this one?
Not compliant with ANSI 117.1 (505.3)
Not compliant with ANSI 117.1 (505.3)
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Ramps and Handrails
- Thread starter jar546
- Start date
Francis Vineyard
Registered User
First photo; in the background behind the ramp there is a door, don't know where it leads if 307.4 applies here.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
I bet it will be real slick in the winter. Doesn't look like it complies with ANSI 405.7.4
Francis Vineyard
Registered User
By counting the spaces between the vertical guards it appears to be the minimum 42 inch wide or standard 48 inch wide landing per 403.5.1
Jobsaver
Registered User
The handrail appears continuous on the inside. It appears in the second photograph that the space between the landing section and ramp section(s) will allow for passing a 4" sphere.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Third photo, 90 degree handrail connector, not smooth, looks like it could tear flesh.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
403.5.1 is Not applicable to ramps
405 governs ramps
405.7.4 Change in Direction.
Ramps that change direction at ramp landings shall be sized to provide a turning space complying with Section 304.3.
304.3 Size.
Turning spaces shall comply with Section 304.3.1 or 304.3.2.
304.3 require a 60" turning space
405 governs ramps
405.7.4 Change in Direction.
Ramps that change direction at ramp landings shall be sized to provide a turning space complying with Section 304.3.
304.3 Size.
Turning spaces shall comply with Section 304.3.1 or 304.3.2.
304.3 require a 60" turning space
Francis Vineyard
Registered User
Danged, I've been foiled again! Thanks mtlogcabin; keeping me in the right direction
Jobsaver
Registered User
Mt: I am looking at sections 1012 & 1013 in the 2006 IBC. What code are you referencing? Thanks.mtlogcabin said:
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
I was looking at ANSI 2003 edition however the 2006 IBC has similar lanquage
1010.6.4 Change in direction.
Where changes in direction of travel occur at landings provided between ramp runs, the landing shall be 60 inches by 60 inches (1524 mm by 1524 mm) minimum.
1010.6.4 Change in direction.
Where changes in direction of travel occur at landings provided between ramp runs, the landing shall be 60 inches by 60 inches (1524 mm by 1524 mm) minimum.
tbz
Silver Member
Here are the core things I pickup on, don't have a book in front of me, but from memory.
1. Since you can't have a ramp run more than 30' I am guessing that the bottom ramp run is less than 30" high to the mid landing. Hence check Width between handrails, curb at bottom, no guard needed for this portion unless height is over 30", not sure about the change in materials at the lower landing, but questionable.
2. As noted by others the mid level landing size seems small <60, but no tape measurement notes, if the landing is still under 30" no guard needed, handrail on outer side seems to extend 12" past not sure though, inner leg wraps around 180 degree landing to upper ramp run seems compliant, but not real sure of the funky fitings used.
3. Upper ramp run, again not sure about height from ground level below, but this looks like it extends more than 30" thus guard requirements kick in for 42" high 4" sphere, yada yada yada, lower handrail extensions look to be compliant except the inner legs fittings?????
Upper terminations of the handrails looks like the outer leg is not terminated corectly for the extension.
4. Now with all that said I am sure there are other things like the 2 strand pipe guard on the upper landing, but I guess thats existing??????
5. Not sure about the height of the handrails nor loads, but an engineers sealed drawings for loads should tell you, that information.
I am guessing the rest of you will add, but these are the questions I see just from the picture, things I would question.
1. Since you can't have a ramp run more than 30' I am guessing that the bottom ramp run is less than 30" high to the mid landing. Hence check Width between handrails, curb at bottom, no guard needed for this portion unless height is over 30", not sure about the change in materials at the lower landing, but questionable.
2. As noted by others the mid level landing size seems small <60, but no tape measurement notes, if the landing is still under 30" no guard needed, handrail on outer side seems to extend 12" past not sure though, inner leg wraps around 180 degree landing to upper ramp run seems compliant, but not real sure of the funky fitings used.
3. Upper ramp run, again not sure about height from ground level below, but this looks like it extends more than 30" thus guard requirements kick in for 42" high 4" sphere, yada yada yada, lower handrail extensions look to be compliant except the inner legs fittings?????
Upper terminations of the handrails looks like the outer leg is not terminated corectly for the extension.
4. Now with all that said I am sure there are other things like the 2 strand pipe guard on the upper landing, but I guess thats existing??????
5. Not sure about the height of the handrails nor loads, but an engineers sealed drawings for loads should tell you, that information.
I am guessing the rest of you will add, but these are the questions I see just from the picture, things I would question.
Jobsaver
Registered User
Do the guard requirement particulars kick in only on the portion of the guard required, all for all portions of the guard present? I am thinking if the guard is present, all particulars should be enforced regardless of the guards height from grade?
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Guards are required if at any point is above 30". So if the highest landing is above 30" the whole stairway needs guards.
I thougt that less than 4" opening was so kids wouldn't get their head stuck in the guard. If this is so why does it matter how high the floor is to require less than a 4" opening.
I thougt that less than 4" opening was so kids wouldn't get their head stuck in the guard. If this is so why does it matter how high the floor is to require less than a 4" opening.
tbz
Silver Member
1. Guards are not required in ANSI A117.1 only handrails,
2. Only required guards are required to meet the 4" sphere requirement, so non-required guards are not required to meet 4" sphere even if there in place, per IBC 2006 & 2009.
3. Height of guards in place under 2006 could be considered to require compliance, however 2009 only requires required guards to comply.
4. The code does not say in the IBC that if any part is over 30" all must comply, it only reads in the IBC that when the drop is more than 30" a guard is required for that section over 30".
You might be thinking of the old IRC 2000, 2003 & 2006 which is no longer in the 2009 IRC. But IBC is not that way nor the 2009 IBC.
Example how many times do you see the first portion of a ramp with 2 strand pipe and then the upper half with guards and handrails.
But all or nothing is not in the code.
2. Only required guards are required to meet the 4" sphere requirement, so non-required guards are not required to meet 4" sphere even if there in place, per IBC 2006 & 2009.
3. Height of guards in place under 2006 could be considered to require compliance, however 2009 only requires required guards to comply.
4. The code does not say in the IBC that if any part is over 30" all must comply, it only reads in the IBC that when the drop is more than 30" a guard is required for that section over 30".
You might be thinking of the old IRC 2000, 2003 & 2006 which is no longer in the 2009 IRC. But IBC is not that way nor the 2009 IBC.
Example how many times do you see the first portion of a ramp with 2 strand pipe and then the upper half with guards and handrails.
But all or nothing is not in the code.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Can't find where it says just the section that is over 30" needs guards.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
SECTION 1013Rick18071 said:
GUARDS
1013.1 Where required. Guards shall be located along
open-sided walking surfaces, including mezzanines, equipment
platforms, stairs, ramps and landings that are located
more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor
or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally
to the edge of the open side. Guards shall be adequate
in strength and attachment in accordance with Section 1607.7.
jar546
Forum Coordinator
OK, Here is the question:
If the 2009 IBC and the ANSI 117.1 2003 applies, what would the violations be on your report?
Explain why...................
If the 2009 IBC and the ANSI 117.1 2003 applies, what would the violations be on your report?
Explain why...................
Mech
Registered User
Here are my comments. Some are ridiculous, but that's what the code says.
Violation? Non-compliant ramp. Why? Because I said so. You can't do that. Well, I've been writing violations like this for years.
Seriously now:
Second Picture
- IBC 1013.3 Looks like a 4" sphere could fit between the ramp guard/railing section and the landing guard/railing section.
Third Picture
- ANSI 505.6 Is the pipe elbow fitting considered an obstruction or is this just a continuous handrail that changes size?
- IBC 1012.2 Handrail height cannot change. The pipe fitting results in a change in height.
- ANSI 405.10 Landings subject to wet conditions shall be designed to prevent the accumulation of water. Looks like this may inadvertantly collect water. How much is too much? The code doesn't say. Dump a bucket of water on it and see how bad it is to walk / manuever a wheel chair on.
Last Picture
- ANSI 505.10 The handrail on the right needs to extend 12" onto the landing or be continuous with a handrail on the landing. Maybe this is OK if you approve exception #3, hazardous in an alteration.
- IBC 1013.3 Looks like a 4" sphere may fit between the new and old railing sections.
Far stretch:
Third Picture - IBC 1013 There are approximately (2) 2" sections missing between the round guards on the ramp runs and the rectangular metal joining the two portions of the landing. Someone might fall off in those 2". :roll:
Violation? Non-compliant ramp. Why? Because I said so. You can't do that. Well, I've been writing violations like this for years.
Seriously now:
Second Picture
- IBC 1013.3 Looks like a 4" sphere could fit between the ramp guard/railing section and the landing guard/railing section.
Third Picture
- ANSI 505.6 Is the pipe elbow fitting considered an obstruction or is this just a continuous handrail that changes size?
- IBC 1012.2 Handrail height cannot change. The pipe fitting results in a change in height.
- ANSI 405.10 Landings subject to wet conditions shall be designed to prevent the accumulation of water. Looks like this may inadvertantly collect water. How much is too much? The code doesn't say. Dump a bucket of water on it and see how bad it is to walk / manuever a wheel chair on.
Last Picture
- ANSI 505.10 The handrail on the right needs to extend 12" onto the landing or be continuous with a handrail on the landing. Maybe this is OK if you approve exception #3, hazardous in an alteration.
- IBC 1013.3 Looks like a 4" sphere may fit between the new and old railing sections.
Far stretch:
Third Picture - IBC 1013 There are approximately (2) 2" sections missing between the round guards on the ramp runs and the rectangular metal joining the two portions of the landing. Someone might fall off in those 2". :roll:
tbz
Silver Member
As a PA inspector with no federal authority, the building inspectors in PA "brudgers" has no authority to tell them to rip it out for 1.5" diameter his authority is under the 2009 IBC and ANSI A117.1 1993 both allow great than 1.5" diameter, also being this is posted in November of 2010 and as of Sept 15, 2010 you have the option to use the 2004 ADAAG the reference to 1993 is mute, because the 2004 ADAAG allows greater than 1.5" diameter.brudgers said:
Jeff,
MEch, cover most of the points and I would only add the following,
1. What was submitted on the drawings? Does it match what is installed, if it does and complies, then I would say you are limited to having them remove the odd sized handrail fittings and replacing with equal size and flow. This is a call on your part if you believe these fittings are obstructions and thus not allowed.
2. At the top of the upper ramp the 12" extension is covered under the exception rule, however, I would request that it be turned 90 degrees and run 12" just to allow the extension to be there, but not extend out in to traffic. This was your question on the post under the pictures.
3. I am not sure why but during the print review, the existing 2 strand pipe guard was not flagged and required to be closed in and meet the new code requirements, I am not sure, but here that would not have been exempt from being upgraded because the upper landing of the ramp must comply with the ramp. The adding of the ramp added this area to be required and in to play at least for the 60" x 60" required area.
4. As for the large openings in the guard at the mid landing to ramp locations if over 30" above the grade below, require be closed down to the 4" sphere. The height of the guard looks to be correct, but check the opening in the top as the 2009 IBC reduced that opening from 8" sphere to 4-3/8" sphere.
Other than that, all the other items of note by others IMO should have been covered under plan review before it was built.